Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 3, Walsh 2, Balboa Park 2, Lazarus 1, Hwang 1, Hurtado 1, Landscaping 1, Honda 1, Unt 1, Cigna 1, Mr. Horcher 1, Erica Chang 1, Bart 1, London 1, New Ramps 1, Walkways 1, The Palm 1, Or Revocations 1, Cohen 1, Courtney Aguirre 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 27, 2013
    3:00 - 3:30am PST  

3:00am
days suspension. >> recently within the last couple of years? >> i believe it was recent. i heard it was last year. but i also looked in dph records and looks more like it was 2006. they don't suspend that often. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in addressing the severity of the penalty, in fact, under the law, under both the ordinance and the regulations, the only penaltis that require a showing of prior violations in order to increase are the administrative fines. from the very first infraction the department of public health has the discretion to revoke a
3:01am
massage permit. the fact it hasn't in this case despite repeated violations, discovered both by the public health inspectors and in operations with the police is a gift. it is a gift from the department of public health that that permit will still exist after this hearing, if the decision here is upheld. i really don't think there is any ground to reduce the penalty. i think if anything, the penalty is still quite gracious. you have a repeat violator in front of you. she is unpreentent and keeps doing it. the attempts to nit pick with the hearings and was everything that we did absolutely perfect? no, but that is not the standard. she certainly had a fair hearing. she certainly had an opportunity to present her case
3:02am
to dph and if she didn't, she certainly had that unt opportunity and more before you. i don't think there is any grounds to overturn the hearing officer's decision and i hope you agree. >> thank you >> are you aware of any other suspensions? how often do these type of establishments have violations and is there a normal standard of suspension or track record? >> i'm not prepared to talk about all of dph's massage cases. i am prepared to talk about this one. i can have ed walsh talk about that one. he is the inspector. >> okay. >> would you like him to? >> if he is able to answer that question. >> are you? >> yes. >> good evening commissioners.
3:03am
i'm ed walsh, i'm the senior environmental health inspector of the massage program for about 8.5 years. i have 28 years' experience as being a city employee with the city and county of san francisco, as a health inspector. regarding penalties for violations, we have a number of violations that we look for, and we fine people or suspend permits. most common violations are practitioners without proper attire, practitioners that don't have licenses and for violations of employeing unlicensed practitioners. those violations usually incur a fine of maybe $1,000 at the first offense and goes all the way up to $5,000 for the third repeat offense. in the two-year period, we keep track of those violations and
3:04am
when we find them, we bring them to the hearing, and appropriately request those penalties. in the case of illegal activities such as prostitution, the fines are a little more stringent and it gives us the opportunity to suspend or revoke permits, if there is prosecution. i'm here to answer questions >> my question is how often are suspensions given for these? >> probably in the last year or so, this is the first one we have suspended this year. we have closed a lot of facilities for operating without permits. but as far as suspensions, or revocations, this year, this would be the first one. >> for 2012? >> for 2012, i believe there was probably one also. >> and how long was that
3:05am
suspension for? >> i think mr. horcher was referring to the palm tree. i think that was for prostitution and that was originally it was a 30-day suspension. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. counselor, i had a question for you. you do not or maybe you do. do you dispute the case history against this establishment in terms of what had been -- which cases have been thrown out and which ones have been carried forth? he indicated the three in his brief, the previous years. >> in terms of the police reports? >> yes. >> actually, i don't take a position on that, because i did not run those down. and the reason was that his argument in that case was that
3:06am
you had to prosecute a case all the way to conviction for it to count. and that is actually not the legal standard. and so i didn't -- i didn't spend my resources tracking down the ultimate disposition of those cases. it is enough for the hearing officer to find that those prior violations occurred regardless of whether or not they eventually led to a conviction. and the hearing officer could properly make that finding based on the sworn police report in front of him. there is case law clearly on point that says that is an appropriate basis and substantial evidence for administrative fact-finding, both the sworn declaration of the police officer and the police officer relating the testimony of other people who had been in the vice team who also participated. so can i say for sure what happened in
3:07am
those cases? no, i can't, but there is no indication that the factual predicate was wrong. it was proper. >> statement sorry, one last question. was there a fine that was levied towards the ceo? >> yes, there is a $2500 fine being levieed >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners barring any further questions, the matter is submitted. >> might i make clear to the commissioners what is before you tonight is the permit itself. but the board has not given you jurisdiction over the fee part of this. so it's really the suspension of the permit that you get to decide on. >> thank you.
3:08am
>> and also, just for clarification, we have no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty? >> right. >> that is correct. up or down? >> i'm sorry, clarification. >> there is no reduction. we have no authority up or down? >> you can modify it. >> yes. you can modify the suspension, but not the fee, the fine, the money. >> thank you. earlier i misunderstood. thanks. >> i mean, are we having conversation? >> yes, please >> looking and going over the file, evidently, this is not the first or the second, or the third. but the reason why i asked for previous background regarding suspensions is that is somewhat of a standard that has been set to follow along with what has
3:09am
been given in the past. i don't know regarding, i guess, the three palms or six palms, how many times they had been caught for violations. so i'm not sure if we go from 30 to 90, if that is appropriate, or if it is appropriate, that is my feeling. and so i'm not sure. i will leave it to the rest of the commissioners for me to hear some more dialogue. >> i think my issue is sort of recidivism issue. so 90-day suspension is not a year. it's into not a revocation. it's somewhere in between. i find persuasive the briefing of the city attorney on the notice issue, as well as uncompelling the briefing on the jurisdiction issue on the part of the appellant.
3:10am
as far as the penalty itself, my generinclination is to uphold as it is. >> i would agree with that. i feel there have been multiple efforts to try to stall on this, to somehow set up a case where there wasn't going to be jurisdiction. i believe the deputy city attorney forewarned us about that at the last hearing. i think we were generous in allowing this case to be delayed for change of counsel and proper briefing. but i continue to be persuaded by the facts and what i have read, that this is a series of violations and this is an appropriate suspension. >> okay.it's interesting in terms of history, because this
3:11am
board back in the '80s, every meeting there would be a suspension or a revocation case related to a massage establishment? >> when was this. in the '80s and mimes more sometimes more than one. i don't know if the numbers has gone down or they are obeying the law more. >> you did your job in the '80s. >> the question here, i don't think there has been a lot of dispute over the incidents. there is probably some dispute over the exact happenstance over the more serious incident and therefore, i accept that there has been a number of issues here that warrant some level of penalty. the contrary side to that is
3:12am
the fact that there were some due process issues. one in terms of the 20 days. and i was also not overly impressed by the nature of the hearing process that i read in the transcript. it was not very well-done and i didn't think it was just an issue of language, but what i read into statements. how people were directed. how they were allowed -- and i didn't find it very appropriate to a city agency in terms of how we deal with our citizens, no matter how guilty they may be. so i would probably, based on that, as a counter, and i don't disagree that they have found significant incidents that warrant penalty, but i would reduce the penalty, just because of the due process
3:13am
issues. >> what is your proposal? >> i would reduce it to 30 days. >> you want to bargain 60? >> split it at 45? >> i could get behind 60. >> split it or 60? >> 60. >> i'm comfortable with 60. >> i'm comfortable with 90, but i'm go to 60. >> i accept. i would move to uphold the appeal and reduce the penalty to 60 days suspension. do you need findings? >> would that be on the basis? >> on the basis that the notice was faulty. >> okay. >> i can't get behind that basis actually that the notice was faulty.
3:14am
>> what would you? >> i would say that there were questions raised regarding process at the hearing level, but not notice. >> all right, due to questions related to process. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner fung. to grant this appeal and reduce the suspension from 90 days to 60 days on the basis of questions related to the process at the departmental hearing. >> yes. thank you. >> on that motion to reduce president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and the suspension is reduced to 60
3:15am
days. >> there is no further business. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco this petition authority.
3:16am
>> i want to welcome commissioner london bree for the first commission meeting. welcome and congratulations on being here. our clerk is erica chang is sfgt are charles and mark. i believe that satisfies our first item roll call. second item? >> to approve the minutes of the december 4, 2012 meeting. it is an action item. >> any comments? public comment? any member of the public would like to comment on item 2? will close of the comment. colleagues can we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. second by supervisor cohen. next item. >> item 3 citizens advisory
3:17am
committee report. an information item. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i have a report. i have a quick report from the december 5 meeting of the cac. at this time we have reviewed and passed action items 5 through 9 from the december 4 plans and programs agenda. the first cac meeting of 2013 will be on wednesday, jan. 23rd. at this meeting we will vote
3:18am
for the chair and vice chair. for the up coming year. thank you. >> thank you very much for your presentation. if there are no comments or questions we can go on the public comment. public comment is now open. no one comes forward. we will close public comment. our next item. >> number four recommend allocation -- prop k funds, to the seven san francisco transportation committee (reading from agenda) an action item.
3:19am
>> i wanted to take the opportunity to welcome our new commissioner breed to the authority board and congratulations and we look forward to working with you. i will also introduce ben supka and courtney aguirre our staff to give a report on this item a group allocation memo of prop k sales tax funds as well as prop aa the vehicle registration funds. >> i will present the first item and courtney will present the last three items. this item begins on page 19 of your packet. we have five prop k requests and prop aa request is link to one of the prop k requests. we adopted a five-year plan.
3:20am
this project are in compliance with the five-year plan except with the -- funding. we have to find funding for the conceptual engineering part for that. prop aa program we adopted strategic planning for those funds. expected leveraging, page 25 and 28 go through brief descriptions of the requests in our recommendations. the first two requests are part for the one ba area grant. we are not entering the project development phase, increasing project readiness. all the project are addressing cost issues, engineering issues, immediate support,
3:21am
environmental issues to make sure we have the strongest project to go through the federal funding cycle. we are the january to april time frame. in february, cac march plans and programs committee will come back with a more robust update as to where we are with the all of the one bay area projects. in june the board will be adapting its final recommendations. that final recommendation goes onto the metropolitan transportation commission at the end of june. as i said we are right at the beginning of the project development phases. one of the two projects are requested, prop k funds to help support the one bay area program, balboa park. it will be added to the previous request of 300,000
3:22am
dollars to complete an engineering report for what are called fast-track -- 3.7 million dollar program that includes things like widening the northside sidewalk, installing transit arrival signs, accessibility improvements, and most salient to the request, new shelter canopies at the north and south side. the picture shows this. to give you some site context of. we want to push along the fast-track projects. looking at more engineering analysis, walkways, the poles to see if they can be
3:23am
moved out of the walkway. another piece is really doing design coordination between the -- project recently funded and the widening of the sidewalk in the shelter canopies. the design elements, will be discussed with all of the agency partners in february. the initial design of the canopies has already been brought to balboa park. the next meeting is in march or april. the canopy design will also go to the city design review committee to get approval in march. i want to leave you with the project stands, the schedule, for the shelter canopies
3:24am
portion construction is september 2015, complete construction in june 2016. next item is similar. prop k support conceptual engineering and planning for the -- corridor improvement project, a complete project that involves sidewalks, bike lanes, paving, landscaping. it is a multiagency, multidistrict project. both the san francisco recreation department, the municipal transportation agency, and department public works are working together. also a multidistrict project. a second districts 9, 10, 11. the scope of work included is to do the planning work that needs to do to find the preferred alternative for the corridor in the conception legendary that would follow along with that. but will include two community
3:25am
meetings in february and march in the selection of the preferred alternative in the presentation of that alternative to the arts commission for approval. both this requesting the previous request will result in conceptual engineering reports and the application in april. let me give you the project schedule for the -- project. it will be designed in april, 2014, construction in 2015, and complete construction in july of 2016. courtney will complete the presentation. >> the sfmta has requested 216,000 dollars in prop k funds. the detail request starts on page 59. cigna locations can be viewed of the map on page 71.
3:26am
the project will also include the installation of new pedestrian signals, signal controllers, conduit wiring, poles, new ramps. based on accident history, traffic volume, progression and benefits to users. the authority previously approved the scope of this project when it allocated prop k funds for the design phase for this project in 2010. the prop k funds will leverage -- federal highway fund and. sfmta dissipates this entire project will be completed in december 2013. sfmta has requested 720,000 in prop k funds to install signals and control boxes, and single pedestrian signals that 22 intersections along franklin street and divisadero street.
3:27am
on page 26 of your packet you can view the specific locations. 19 locations along franklin, 3 along divisadero. the conduit is going to be installed in coordination with the department up other works repaving projects on both of these corridors. -- already program to install the pedestrian countdown signals occurring after the conduit installation at these locations. that work is anticipated to begin in june 20 fourteenth after the paving work is completed. >> we had approved that earlier this year? >> that is correct, july, 2012. >> last year. >> yeah.
3:28am
the final request is from bart, for the 24sth st. pedestrian improvements. bart requested 200,000 in funds and -- as part of the larger 24 street pedestrian proven project. this project specifically will focus on sopwith plaza and includes installation of two cub ramps, public artwork, landscape improvements such as artistic fencing. bart's 24th street north -- project is a continuation. this project was from eight community-based plan -- prop k
3:29am
will be leveraging 2.1 million, bart anticipates construction of this project will begin in february 2013 and concluded the end of this calendar year. this request as required financially neutral amendment to the prop aa strategic improvement, five-year prioritization program to -- from fiscal year 2013-14 to 14-15. to enable bart to award and begin construction again. this is a financially neutral amendment to the strategic plan. that concludes the request. >> okay very good. thank you for your presentations. if there are no comments or questions from the committee will go onto public comment. any member from the

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)